SOC 1
MODULE I: THEORIES OF MODERNITY
MAX WEBER
Lecture summary:
a. Historical context
The first part of this lecture explores the particular intellectual and socio-political context in which Weber
wrote. It includes, amongst other things, a discussion of Weber’s relationship to historical materialism, his
position vis-a-vis the ‘Methodenstreit’, the notion of Verstehen and the use of ideal types.
b. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
The second part introduces Weber’s classic study of the relationship between Protestantism and rational
capitalism. The lecture also explores Weber’s text on ‘bureaucracy’.
c. Weberian sociology and its critics
The final part gives some indication of Weber’s influence and assesses various critiques of Weberian
sociology.
Sources
Lecture notes
SEP
Aron, R. 1965. Main Currents in Sociological Thought 2. London: Penguin, pp. 185-258 (chapter 3).
Baert, P. 2005. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity. (chapter 2)
Bendix, R. 1998. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. London: Routledge.
Collins, H. Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (esp.
chapters 1, 2)
Kasler, D. 1988. Max Weber: An Introduction to his Life and Work. Cambridge: Polity.
Mommsen, W.J. 1989. The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays. Cambridge:
Polity, especially pp. 109-168 (especially part III).
Poggi, G. 2006. Weber; A Short Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
* Weber, M. 1976[1904]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: George
Allen and Unwin.
* Weber, M. 1991 ‘Bureaucracy’, in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, eds. H.H. Gerth. and C.W.
Mills. London: Routledge, pp. 196-244.
Zimmerman, Andrew. “Decolonizing Weber.” Postcolonial Studies 9, no. 1 (2006): 53–79.
, SOC 1
MODULE I: THEORIES OF MODERNITY
MAX WEBER
Key info
Works
(1864-1920)
● The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-5/1920-1)
o Interested in the shift from Catholicism to protestantism
● ‘Bureaucracy’ in: From Max Weber.
● ‘Class, Status, Party’ in: Economy and Society
Influences and context
Strongly influenced by German idealism and neo-Kantianism (particularly idea that reality is chaotic
and incomprehensible. Rational order derived from way human mind focuses attention on certain
aspects of reality)
Methodenstreit (“method dispute”: analysis of the form of social science v natural, Weber trying to find
an improved basis for historicist approach, trying to purify the economics as a contingent of reality)
● Positivism – believed you should adopt methods similar to ones adopted in the natural sciences.
Empirical vs. abstract.
● Naturalism – natural science methodology
o Part of this dispute was over value neutrality in the methods of the social sciences vs
natural sciences, whether in investigation in the social and historical phenomena you are
able to separate bw what is and what ought to be
o Weber takes an anti-naturalist position on axiological (study of values) grounds
● Nomothetic knowledge; Emphasis on finding laws and causality through method similar to that
of natural sciences and on objective analysis. Weber didn’t attempt to create a set of rules
governing the social sciences, but focused on individuals and culture.
o This was the second part of the debate: whether you could make rules
● N.b. historicism: Weber’s position situated close to it. He understood social actions as being
heavily tied to the particular historical contexts
Hermeneutics (meaning of action in relation to surroundings, effort to understand contingent,
subjective, unique cultural phenomena; typical of humanities; Kant)
● Anti-naturalism: ontology… requires a different methodology to that of the natural sciences.
Objectivity not appropriate here because can’t take yourself out of the process (methodology as an
artform)
● Ideographic knowledge historical context for in explaining. Can’t make claims about causality,
esp. in the LR
● Emphasis on the genius of intuition (but weber thinks this conflates psychological mechanisms
with logical structure of historical knowledge)
● Weber agreed with Hermeneutics that selection and org of society based on cultural significance is
distinct from study of social phenomena in terms of laws e.g. study of exchange system doesn’t
tell you why exchange so important in modern soc
● BUT… Weber doesn’t conclude that intuition alone is the basis of social study – it is insufficient.
Empathetic understanding is incompatible with requirements of demonstration and
verification… need corroboration of empirical observation (n.b. def of soc: interpret to find
causal explanation)
Weber aims to bridge the gap b/w Methodenstreit and Hermeneutics
● Agreed with hermeneutic authors that values and norms of investigators influence their
research: there is no objective analysis of culture. Subjective presuppositions bc we attach
cultural significance with that which we have a relationship
MODULE I: THEORIES OF MODERNITY
MAX WEBER
Lecture summary:
a. Historical context
The first part of this lecture explores the particular intellectual and socio-political context in which Weber
wrote. It includes, amongst other things, a discussion of Weber’s relationship to historical materialism, his
position vis-a-vis the ‘Methodenstreit’, the notion of Verstehen and the use of ideal types.
b. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
The second part introduces Weber’s classic study of the relationship between Protestantism and rational
capitalism. The lecture also explores Weber’s text on ‘bureaucracy’.
c. Weberian sociology and its critics
The final part gives some indication of Weber’s influence and assesses various critiques of Weberian
sociology.
Sources
Lecture notes
SEP
Aron, R. 1965. Main Currents in Sociological Thought 2. London: Penguin, pp. 185-258 (chapter 3).
Baert, P. 2005. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity. (chapter 2)
Bendix, R. 1998. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. London: Routledge.
Collins, H. Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (esp.
chapters 1, 2)
Kasler, D. 1988. Max Weber: An Introduction to his Life and Work. Cambridge: Polity.
Mommsen, W.J. 1989. The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays. Cambridge:
Polity, especially pp. 109-168 (especially part III).
Poggi, G. 2006. Weber; A Short Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
* Weber, M. 1976[1904]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: George
Allen and Unwin.
* Weber, M. 1991 ‘Bureaucracy’, in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, eds. H.H. Gerth. and C.W.
Mills. London: Routledge, pp. 196-244.
Zimmerman, Andrew. “Decolonizing Weber.” Postcolonial Studies 9, no. 1 (2006): 53–79.
, SOC 1
MODULE I: THEORIES OF MODERNITY
MAX WEBER
Key info
Works
(1864-1920)
● The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-5/1920-1)
o Interested in the shift from Catholicism to protestantism
● ‘Bureaucracy’ in: From Max Weber.
● ‘Class, Status, Party’ in: Economy and Society
Influences and context
Strongly influenced by German idealism and neo-Kantianism (particularly idea that reality is chaotic
and incomprehensible. Rational order derived from way human mind focuses attention on certain
aspects of reality)
Methodenstreit (“method dispute”: analysis of the form of social science v natural, Weber trying to find
an improved basis for historicist approach, trying to purify the economics as a contingent of reality)
● Positivism – believed you should adopt methods similar to ones adopted in the natural sciences.
Empirical vs. abstract.
● Naturalism – natural science methodology
o Part of this dispute was over value neutrality in the methods of the social sciences vs
natural sciences, whether in investigation in the social and historical phenomena you are
able to separate bw what is and what ought to be
o Weber takes an anti-naturalist position on axiological (study of values) grounds
● Nomothetic knowledge; Emphasis on finding laws and causality through method similar to that
of natural sciences and on objective analysis. Weber didn’t attempt to create a set of rules
governing the social sciences, but focused on individuals and culture.
o This was the second part of the debate: whether you could make rules
● N.b. historicism: Weber’s position situated close to it. He understood social actions as being
heavily tied to the particular historical contexts
Hermeneutics (meaning of action in relation to surroundings, effort to understand contingent,
subjective, unique cultural phenomena; typical of humanities; Kant)
● Anti-naturalism: ontology… requires a different methodology to that of the natural sciences.
Objectivity not appropriate here because can’t take yourself out of the process (methodology as an
artform)
● Ideographic knowledge historical context for in explaining. Can’t make claims about causality,
esp. in the LR
● Emphasis on the genius of intuition (but weber thinks this conflates psychological mechanisms
with logical structure of historical knowledge)
● Weber agreed with Hermeneutics that selection and org of society based on cultural significance is
distinct from study of social phenomena in terms of laws e.g. study of exchange system doesn’t
tell you why exchange so important in modern soc
● BUT… Weber doesn’t conclude that intuition alone is the basis of social study – it is insufficient.
Empathetic understanding is incompatible with requirements of demonstration and
verification… need corroboration of empirical observation (n.b. def of soc: interpret to find
causal explanation)
Weber aims to bridge the gap b/w Methodenstreit and Hermeneutics
● Agreed with hermeneutic authors that values and norms of investigators influence their
research: there is no objective analysis of culture. Subjective presuppositions bc we attach
cultural significance with that which we have a relationship
